# Carroccio v. Smith

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · April 25, 2018

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009151

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** April 25, 2018
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009151

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION

DANIEL DAVID CARROCCIO PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No.: 1:18-CV-02059

SERGEANT EDDIE SMITH, Sebastian
County Detention Center (SCDC); CAPTAIN
DUMAS, SCDC; SHERIFF BILL
HOLLENBECK, Sebastian County, Arkansas DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff proceeds in this matter pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the
Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey a Court order and failure to prosecute this case.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 27, 2018. (ECF No. 1). The Plaintiff also filed a
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 2).
Also on March 27, 2018, the Court found that additional information is needed to rule on
the Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application. The Court ordered that the Plaintiff complete a
certification regarding inmate funds by April 16, 2018. (ECF No. 3). The Order stated that
“[f]ailure to comply within the time period specified could result in summary dismissal for failure
to obey a court order.” (ECF No. 3).
The Plaintiff has not submitted the completed certification and has not communicated with
the Court since filing his Complaint on March 27, 2018.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a case on the
ground that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with orders of the court. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (stating that the district court
possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)). Pursuant to Rule 41(b), a district
court has the power to dismiss an action based on “the plaintiff’s failure to comply with any court
order.” Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added).
III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff has failed to comply with a Court Order directing him to return a certification
regarding inmate funds. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this matter. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s Local Rules and Orders and failure to prosecute
this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of April 2018.
/s/ P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10009151. Public record. Not legal advice.